Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by wskinner 854 days ago
What about people who don’t want to live near train tracks? Or people who currently live on land that would be seized if train tracks were to be built? Not everyone wants to live in a city.
4 comments

What about people who don’t want to live near train tracks? Or people who currently live on land that would be seized if train tracks were to be built? Not everyone wants to live in a city.

You see those gigantic parking lots and 4 way stroads? Many of the parking lots are empty for much of the day, and stroads are dangerous and inefficient.

For that matter, freeways and interstate highways are valuable resources we could repurpose for train tracks.

We have grossly inefficient transportation corridor that could easily be made more efficient.

Now, there will still be need to demolish homes and businesses for public benefit, but reducing traffic and making good use of land more efficiently means less homes will needed to be demolished.

The polled preferences of Americans look something like 60-40 in favor of single family homes. The actual land distribution in metropolitan areas looks more like 95-5.

To some degree, building more train tracks and allowing dense housing relieves pressure on the remaining areas.

or people don't tell the whole truth in polls?
we have no way of figuring that out. The land is not legally permissive to get to a true market-oriented distribution of housing.
Sure we do. We can investigate the living preferences of people with the means to choose between multiple options.
I don't want to live near cars yet it is virtually illegal for me to get that short of becoming a hermit in the mountains. What about me?
Then move out to a rural community and good luck trying to find a job there.
Plenty of us have no problem working from a mostly rural area.
Great! Then you can move out there and not worry about living in a city, and this discussion isn't relevant to you. Problem solved.